G. T. NANAVATI, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner is the original plaintiff. He has filed Regular Civil Suit No. 162 of 1977 in the Court of the learned Civil Judge (Junior Division) Porbandar for recovering possession of the suit premises. Admittedly he applied on 7-4-1981 long time after the issues were framed for permission to produce certain documents. In the application Exh. 42 he did not state any reason for producing the documents at such a late stage. That application was opposed by the opponent- defendant on the ground that both the documents which the petitioner wanted to produce if genuine should have been to his possession and therefore he ought to have produced them at or before the settlement of issues and that it was possible that those documents might have been fabricated or got up subsequently. ( 2 ) AT the time of hearing of the said application it was urged on behalf of the petitioner-plaintiff that even though the suit was filed in 1977 and the issues were framed in 1973 the matter was adjourned from time to time and effective hearing of the suit has not started. It was also urged that the said documents were not produced earlier because talks of compromise were going on. The learned Civil Judge did not accept the explanation for the reason that there was no material on record to show that negotiations for compromise were going on between the parties. He rejected the application for the reason that the documents were not produced at the appropriate stage and that no ground was made out for producing them so late. ( 3 ) FIRST contention raised on behalf of the petitioner was that the Courts while dealing with such matters should not be too technical and allow production of documents even at later stages of the suit by awar- ding cost to the other side. It was urged that in this case effective hearing of the suit has not begun and the petitioner was willing to pay cost of the other side; and therefore his application ought to have been granted. In support of this contention reliance was placed upon the decision of this Court (Coram : Talati J.) in Civil Revision Application No. 318 of 1980 decided on 10-12-1980. In support of this contention reliance was placed upon the decision of this Court (Coram : Talati J.) in Civil Revision Application No. 318 of 1980 decided on 10-12-1980. ( 4 ) ORDER 13 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure requires the parties to produce all the documentary evidence in their possession at or before the settlement of issues. The object of the said Rule is to see that such evidence is produced at the earliest. Like other procedural Rules contained in the Code this Rule is intended to secure speedy and orderly conduct of the suit. Obviously the parties cannot be premi- tted to produce documentary evidence as and when they like merely because they are willing to pay cost of the other side. This Rule is intended to be complied with and the party committing a default under- takes the risk of his documents being rejected. Order 13 Rule 2 in clear terms provides for the consequences. Though this provision is to be construed liberally so as to advance the cause of justice it cannot be urged that even if no good cause is shown for late production it must be permitted on payment of cost. It is not a matter of right of the party but a matter of discretion of the Court. The decision relied upon does not lay down such an absolute proposition as canvassed by the petitioner. In that case the defendant had shown that an irrepairable injury was likely to be caused to him if he was not allowed to produce the said documents. This circumstance together with other circumstances of the case was regarded as a good cause and for that reason it was observed that production of documents even at the late stage should have been allowed by awarding costs to the plaintiff. ( 5 ) IT was then urged that the learned Civil Judge was not right in rejecting the petitioners application as a good cause was shown by him for producing his documents late. This contention deserved to be acce- pted. Even though the suit is of the year 1977 and the issues were framed in 1978 it becomes apparent from the Rojnama of the suit that for some reason or the other actual recording of evidence did not begin till the application came to be given on 7-4-1981. This contention deserved to be acce- pted. Even though the suit is of the year 1977 and the issues were framed in 1978 it becomes apparent from the Rojnama of the suit that for some reason or the other actual recording of evidence did not begin till the application came to be given on 7-4-1981. The case of the plaintiff is that negotiations for compromise were going on between the parties. This fact was not even denied by the other side. It is true that this ground was not mentioned in the application and no material in support thereof was produced. It was however mentioned at the time of arguments and was not disputed by the other side. If it was not a genuine ground surely the defendant would have disputed the same. The learned Civil Judge therefore should have believed it and held it to be a good ground. ( 6 ) MOREOVER the documents which the plaintiff wants to produce are counterfoils of the rent receipts given to the defendant and the registered deed of gift made in his favour by his grand-father on 20 It is not likely that such documents could have been fabri- cated by the plaintiff after filing the suit. ( 7 ) FOR all these reasons the order passed by the learned Civil Judge below Exh. 42 is held erroneous and will have to be set aside. In the result this revision application is allowed. The order dated 7 passed by the learned trial Judge below Exh. 42 is set aside; and the said application is granted. The learned trial Judge is directed to take those documents on record subject to their admissibility and other contentions (including their genuineness) that may be raised on behalf of the defendant. Rule is made absolute with no order as to costs. .